See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301300078

Preliminary Investigation on the Overstrength and Force Reduction Factors for

Industrial Rack Clad Buildings

Conference Paper · July 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 106

2 authors:

A.B.M.R. Haque M. Shahria Alam

Parsons University of British Columbia - Okanagan
11 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS    192 PUBLICATIONS   1,336 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structural health monitoring View project

The Smart Bracing System View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M. Shahria Alam on 15 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION ON THE OVERSTRENGTH AND
FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS FOR INDUSTRIAL RACK CLAD
BUILDINGS
A.B.M. Rafiqul Haque
Graduate Research Assistant, The University of British Columbia, Canada
[email protected]

M. Shahria Alam
Associate Professor, The University of British Columbia, Canada
[email protected]

ABSTRACT: Rack Clad Building (RCB) is a type of warehouse structure built entirely using steel storage
racks. Now-a-days, these structures are being built in many places around the world including high
seismic zones. However, there exists no seismic design guideline for these structures. In this study, the
overstrength and ductility related force reduction factors have been investigated for these structures.
Several RCB moment resisting frames were modeled and analyzed in S-Frame structural analysis and
design software using incremental dynamic time history and nonlinear static analysis procedures. The
effects of frame height on the force reduction factors have also been investigated. The preliminary values
of the force reduction and overstrength factor were found to be 2.06 and 1.06 respectively. The values
obtained in this study are conservative and within the limit proposed by previous researchers.

1. Introduction
In recent years, RCB structures have become common around the world. The primary building block of
the RCB structures are steel storage racks, which could be found in hardware stores and supermarkets.
The RCB structures have some advantages compared to traditional steel structures. They can be easily
disassembled and moved to a new location if required. As no welding or riveting is required, these
structures can be constructed very rapidly. Unlike steel storage racks, RCB structures have to resist
environmental loads. These structures have to withstand the full force of wind and earthquake; otherwise,
they might collapse and cause severe personal and property loss. As this structural system is relatively
new compared to the traditional steel structures, very little effort has been put into the development of a
seismic design guideline for them. The Canadian standard CSA A344.2 (2005) provides some guidelines
to design steel storage racks, but no similar guidelines exist for designing rack clad building structures.
Also in the United States, FEMA-460 (2005) and the Rack Manufacturing Institute (RMI 2012) provide
seismic guidelines for designing steel storage racks but not for RCBs.
In this study, pushover and incremental dynamic time history analyses have been carried out to calculate
the two most important parameters for seismic design, e.g. the overstrength and ductility related force
reduction factor. These two factors are used in the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC 2010) to
reduce the elastic base shear demand by taking advantage of structural reserve strength (Overstrength)
and the building’s capacity to dissipate energy by going into a nonlinear range of response (Ductility).
2. Force-Based Design
Most building codes around the world recommend force-based design (FBD) procedure for designing
buildings against earthquake loading. The NBCC (2010) also recommends force-based seismic design
methods and provides a list of ductility and overstrength factors for different types of reinforced concrete
frames (Mitchell et al. 2003). Force-based design is primarily based on estimated seismic demand force

Page 1 of 10
that is calculated using empirical equations or simple response spectrum analysis. In NBCC (2010), the
design seismic base shear demand for a structure is calculated by dividing the elastic base shear
demand (VE) by the product of the ductility related force reduction factor (Rd) and the overstrength factor
(Ro) also known as the response modification factor (R) (Lee et al. 1999). This is the most important
parameter for current force-based seismic design. The reduction of base shear is based on the
observation that a well-detailed structure is able to sustain lateral force in excess of its design strength
and can undergo a large amount of deformation without collapse (Kim and Choi 2005). The reduction of
the elastic base shear demand is calculated by the following equation available in NBCC (2010).
𝑆(𝑇𝑎 )𝑀𝑣 𝐼𝐸 𝑊
𝑉𝑑 = (1)
𝑅𝑑 𝑅𝑜

Where,
Vd is the design base shear demand
S(Ta) is the spectral acceleration demand
Mv is a factor to account for higher mode effects
IE is the importance factor
W is the seismic weight of the structure
The numerator of equation 1 is the elastic base shear demand (VE). The higher the value of the factors
“Rd” and “Ro” the lower the base shear demand is, hence leading to more economic design.
At present, the RCB structures are also designed using equivalent lateral force procedure, which uses the
above-mentioned two factors. As there are no design guidelines for RCB structures, engineers normally
use experience and practical judgment in guessing the values for these factors (Haque and Alam 2013).
Figure 1 provides the definition of these factors and their correlation. This figure also shows a
representative nonlinear behaviour of a frame structure in terms of base shear versus roof top
displacement. In the same figure, an idealized bilinear elastic-perfectly plastic representation of this
nonlinear behaviour is shown. This idealization was done as per FEMA 356 (2000) recommendations. A
notable parameter in this figure is ductility (µ), which is defined as the ratio of maximum displacement
(Δmax) to the displacement (Δy) corresponding to the global yield (Vy) of the idealized bilinear curve. Here
the factor ‘R’ is the ratio between the elastic base shear demand (VE) and the design base shear (Vd). A
higher value of ‘R’ signifies higher energy dissipation capacity (Kim and Choi, 2004). In this figure the
ductility related force reduction factor (Rd ) is indicated by the ratio between elastic base shear (VE) and
yield base shear (Vy). The overstrength factor is defined as the ratio between the yield base shear (Vy)
and the design base shear (Vd).

VE Elastic
Strength
VE=R.Vd

Idealized VE=Rd.Vy
Vy Actual
Base Shear

Strength
Actual Capacity
Envelope Vy=Ro.Vd
Design
Vd
Strength

Δy Δmax Top Displacement

Δmax=μ.Δy

Figure 1: Relationships between force reduction (Rd), overstrength (Ro), response modification
factor (R) and displacement ductility (µ) (adapted from Mwafy and Elnashai, 2002)

Page 2 of 10
2.1. Response modification factor calculation in literature
The standard method for calculating the force reduction factor and the overstrength factor can be found in
literature. Asgarian and Shokrgozar (2009) calculated response modification factors for buckling
restrained braced frames (BRBF) for the Iranian building code. They carried out nonlinear static analyses
to calculate the over-strength factor and incremental dynamic collapse analyses to calculate the force
reduction factor. They found out that the force reduction factor decreases very rapidly with the increase of
frame height but the overstrength factor decreases very little for the same change of height.
Annan et al. (2009) presented the values and calculation method of overstrength factor for modular steel
building (MSB), a type of structure for which structural members are made in factories and brought to the
site and joined together. They carried out their research in the context of Canadian building design code.
A more comprehensive analysis for determining the force reduction factor (“R”) can be found in Mwafy
and Elnashai, (2001). They carried out a study for the calculation of force reduction or “R” factor “supply”
for a wide range of medium rise reinforced concrete buildings. Both inelastic pushover and incremental
dynamic collapse analyses were carried out for the calculation of the “R” factor.
2.2. Current standard in rack industry
The Rack Manufacturing Institute (RMI 2012) recommends a response modification factor (R) of “Six” for
the down-aisle moment-resisting frame (MRF) and “Four” for the braced frame in the cross-aisle direction.
The values suggested in RMI (2012) are independent of structural steel types (hot-rolled or cold-formed)
and the degree of connection flexibility. On the contrary, Euro code 8 does not explicitly mention rack
structures or buildings. However, for members made of cold formed steel with semi-compact class 3
sections, it assumes a value of behavior factor (Response modification factor) less than or equal to 2 for
seismic design. Euro Code 8 does not provide any recommendation for slender class 4 sections with
perforations that are used generally in rack columns. Beattie (2006) proposed a design guideline for steel
storage racks where he suggested that for both cross-aisle and down-aisle direction, the maximum
ductility used for design should be 1.25 and in no cases should it go beyond 3.0 for down -aisle direction
except detailed study suggests otherwise.
3. Analytical Assumptions
The following studies were taken into consideration during finite element modeling of the RCB frames.
Filiatrault et al. (2006a) developed a simple analytical model to capture the behavior of steel racks under
seismic excitation in the down-aisle direction. In the analytical model, they assumed that the beam-to-
column joint and the column-to-baseplate connections have lower moment rotation stiffness than those of
the beams and columns. As a result, during lateral loading, only the connections experience a nonlinear
response. On the other hand, the beams and columns essentially remain elastic. Filiatrault et al. (2006a)
verified this assumption using shake table testing of the rack structures. As the beam-to-column and the
column-to-baseplate joints have significantly lower stiffness than the connected members, the connectors
serve as weak links or structural fuses during seismic loading. Consequently, these connections go into a
nonlinear range of response well before the beams or columns reach their yield capacity. Due to the
presence of such flexibility at the joints, the possibility of the beam or columns failing due to warping is
significantly low.
4. Lateral Force Resisting System
The basic components of steel storage racks are shown in Figure 2(a). The frame system consists of
upright (column) posts with openings at a regular interval for connecting the beams on one side and the
braces on the other side, which can be seen in Figure 2(b). They rely on portal frame action in the down-
aisle direction and frame action in the cross-aisle direction to resist lateral loads (Beattie 2006). Often
braces and cables are used in the down-aisle direction to reduce the horizontal deflection due to lateral
load.
The moment resisting frame systems used in the down-aisle direction of steel storage racks generally
incorporate teardrop beam-to-upright connections (Figure 2(b)). Although teardrop connections appear to
be similar to those of the steel moment-resisting frames, they behave differently than the connection
systems commonly used in buildings (Filiatrault et al. 2006a). Figure 3(a) shows a typical cross section of
an RCB column. The RCB columns are generally made of 1.8mm to 3mm thick cold formed steel. The

Page 3 of 10
commonly used shapes are known as Ω sections. Beams are generally rectangular box sections with
thicknesses varying from 1.5mm to 1.8mm. The beam depths usually range from 72mm to 150mm and
width around 50 mm. Braces are generally made of small channel sections.

8 mm 45 mm
Beam
Diagonal Frame
37 mm

11 mm
Drum Chock Rack upright

Thickness = 3 mm

Plywood clipboard

20 mm
Beam
Galvanized steel
Pallet support shelf panel Teardrop
bar connector 8 mm
Base Plate

26 mm
Guard Corner

(a) (b)
Figure 2: (a) Basic components of a steel storage rack (b) Teardrop connector (adapted from Saar
Lagertechnik GmbH (2010))
The inelastic rotation capacity of the beam-to-upright connections of rack structures is significantly high;
for example, the connection hysteresis adapted from Beattie (2006) for this study has exceeded 0.068
radians. Figure 3(b) shows the simulated moment rotation hysteresis of a rack beam-to-column joint
presented by Beattie (2006). The hysteresis shows significant pinching and strength degradation, which is
very different from the beam-to-column joints of a typical steel structure.
8 mm 45 mm

1.5
37 mm

11 mm 1
Thickness = 3 mm
0.5
Moment (kN-m)

7 mm

0
20 mm
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

-0.5

8 mm
-1
38 mm
26 mm -1.5
Rotation (Radians)

(a) (b)
Figure 3: (a) Cross section of the rack column (b) Rack beam-to-column connection hysteresis
simulated using pivot hysteresis model
Filiatrault et al. (2006a) found out from experimental study that the maximum rotation capacity of rack
connectors could be as high as 0.2 radians. In contrast, building moment-resisting connections have
inelastic rotation capacities of around 0.04 radians for special moment-frame systems. As these
structures have low story heights with long fundamental periods compared to general building structures,

Page 4 of 10
the rotational demand at the beam-to-column joints also becomes very large in order to withstand strong
earthquake ground motions.
5. RCB Frame Modeling and Pushover Response
Figure 4 shows the selected RCB frames for force reduction factor calculation. In this study the beam-to-
column joint moment-rotation hysteresis has been adopted from the experimental results of Beattie
(2006), which were simulated in S-Frame (2014) by the pivot hysteresis model (Dowell et al, 1999) as
shown in Figure 3(b). More details on the model validation can be obtained from Haque and Alam (2013).

2.25m

1.767m 1.6m 1.6m 1.6m

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 4: RCB frames modeled for Rd and Ro calculation (a) four (b) six (c) eight and (d) ten story
Material properties and some finite element model details are as follows: the selected frames have similar
story heights where the first story height is 1.767 m and the subsequent stories are 1.6 m. Each bay is
2.25 m wide. Modulus of elasticity of steel was set as 200 GPa. A uniformly distributed load of 2.37kN/m

Page 5 of 10
was applied on the beams. Columns are connected to the ground with semi rigid springs with the same
moment rotation hysteresis as the beam-to-column joints.
The seismic load of the frame was calculated by taking the contribution of full dead load. For storage
load, two load reduction factors were used for the storage load: one was the area reduction factor (0.8)
and the other one was for disconnection of pallets from the shelves during seismic excitation (0.66). Their
multiplication results in a value of 0.536 (Beattie 2006). The calculated seismic load of the frames under
the “DL+0.536LL” load case is 87.7kN, 131.5kN, 175.16kN, and 218.7kN for the 4, 6, 8 and 10 storied
frames, respectively. Columns used in the RCB frame have similar cross sectional dimensions as shown
in Figure 2(c) and all the beams are 50mmx100mmx1.5mm rectangular hollow section. All of these
frames have similar beam and column dimensions. The only thing that varied is the beam-to-column
connector stiffness, and were designed using tentative Ro and Rd values approximated from pushover
analysis using Riddell et al. (1989) method.
The RCB columns contain perforations at regular intervals. Modeling a large frame using perforated
column section requires the use of shell elements, which is very time consuming. In order to avoid this,
the RCB models used in this study were built using beam elements. As omega section is not available in
S-Frame (2014) software, a general section was created and all sectional properties were directly
provided in that section. These section properties (Table 1) were collected from Haque and Alam (2013).
Using the calculated section properties and the simulated connector backbone curve (Figure 3(b)),
pushover analyses were carried out on the RCB frames. Figure 5 shows the base shear vs. roof
displacement curves for four, six, eight and ten storied RCB frames. The straight-line curves drawn along
these curves are the bilinear idealizations, which were used for the calculation of overstrength factors.
The areas under the actual and idealized curves were made approximately same using trial and error
procedure. These calculated values are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 presents the values of the global yield base shear and base shear at first structural yield along
other important parameter values. The base shear force at the first structural yield was calculated by
observing connector moment values simultaneously with the base shear forces from each step of the
pushover analysis. From the ratio of yield base shear and base shear at first yield, the overstrength factor
values were calculated.
Table 1: Mechanical properties of the RCB column section
Mechanical Property Value Unit
Cross Sectional Area, A 1053.26 mm2
Torsional Constant, J 3117.16 mm4
Moment of Inertia around 3 axis, I33 1651176 mm4
Moment of Inertia around 2 axis, I22 1029853 mm4
Shear area in 2 direction, As2 406.16 mm2
Shear area in 3 direction, As3 587.53 mm2
Radius of gyration around 3 axis, r33 39.64 mm
Radius of gyration around 2 axis, r22 31.26 mm

Table 2: Overstrength and Ductility Factor Calculation from Pushover Analysis

Four Six Eight Ten
Description
Storied Storied Storied Storied
Base Shear at Global Yield, Vy (kN) 6.1 4.50 2.85 2.46
Yield Displacement, Δy (m) 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.19

Page 6 of 10
 Ultimate Displacement, Δu (m) 0.47 0.46 0.38 0.36
Base shear at First Yield, V1y (kN) 5.37 4.17 2.75 2.46
Overstrength Factor, Ro=Vy/V1y 1.14 1.08 1.04 1.00
Ductility= Δu/Δy 2.76 2.57 2.00 1.89

7
4 Story
6
4 StoryIdealized
5
Base Shear (kN)

6 Story
4 6 Story Idealized
3 8 Story
2 8 Story Idealized
10 Story
1
10 Story Idealized
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Roof Displacement (m)
Figure 5: Over strength factor calculation for four bay wide RCB moment resisting frames using
pushover analysis

6. Force Reduction Factor Calculation

At the first step, the RCB frames were designed against the code specified response spectrum. The
tentative Ro and Rd values were calculated using pushover analysis and Riddell et al. (1989) method.
During the design process, it was observed that, the selected beams and columns had adequate reserve
strength and did not require any change in section size but the beam-to-column connectors required
design revisions. The connector design was revised as per demand and practical moment rotation limits
were checked using Prabha et al. (2010) model. The revised connector designs are presented in Figure
8. It can be observed that with the increase in story height both stiffness and strength of the connectors
need to be increased in order to satisfy the increasing moment demand at the beam-to-column joint.

2.5 1.6
EQ1: Northridge 0.40g
Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g, m/s2)

2 1.4 EQ2: Artificial (0.40g)

EQ3: Chi Chi (0.27g)
1.5 1.2 EQ4: Corralitos (0.53g
1 EQ5: Emeryville (0.25g
1
Moment (kN-m)

EQ6: Imperial Valley (

0.5 EQ7: Kobe (0.31g)
0.8 EQ8: Kocaeli (0.38g)
0
EQ9: Loma Prieta (0.44
-0.5 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.6
EQ10: Sakaria (0.46)
-1 0.4 Vancouver Spectrum (0

-1.5 4 Story
0.2
6 to 8 Story
-2 0
10 Story
-2.5 0 1 2 3
Rotation (radians) Time Period (T, Sec)
Figure 8: Beam-to-column moment rotation backbone curves for four, six, eight and ten storied
frames
The force reduction factor is defined as the ratio between the elastic base shear (Velastic) and the inelastic
base shear capacity (Vinelastic) of a structure. The inelastic base shear capacities of RCB frames were
determined using incremental dynamic time history analysis. A set of ten earthquake records was
selected and was scaled to match the Vancouver soil class ‘C’ response spectrum using SeismoMatch

Page 7 of 10
(2013) software. This software uses the wavelet algorithm proposed by Abrahamson (1992) and Hancock
et al. (2006). The matched spectra are shown in Figure 9. At the next step, these earthquake records
were scaled using different scaling factors. Finally, these scaled records were used to carry out non-linear
dynamic time history analyses on the RCB frames. During the incremental dynamic analyses (IDA), the
base shear and the roof top displacements were recorded for each record. These analyses were carried
out for gradually increasing scale factors until the frame finally became unstable under lateral load. The
final base shear forces before global instability were recorded as collapse base shear and denoted as
Vinelastic. This final scaled earthquake was used to run a linear dynamic time history analysis of the same
frame and the maximum base shear was recorded. This base shear was denoted as V elastic.
1.6
EQ1: Northridge 0.40g
Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g, m/s2)
1.4 EQ2: Artificial (0.40g)
EQ3: Chi Chi (0.27g)
1.2 EQ4: Corralitos (0.53g)
EQ5: Emeryville (0.25g)
1 EQ6: Imperial Valley (0.32g)
EQ7: Kobe (0.31g)
0.8 EQ8: Kocaeli (0.38g)
0.6 EQ9: Loma Prieta (0.44g)
EQ10: Sakaria (0.46)
0.4 Vancouver Spectrum (0.47g)

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4
Time Period (T, Sec)
Figure 9: Response spectra of ten earthquake records matched with Vancouver response
spectrum (PGA values of the matched records shown inside bracket).
The ratio between Velastic and Vinelastic is denoted as the force reduction factor (Rd ) and presented in Figure
10. From this figure, it can be observed that the values of force reduction factors reduce with the increase
in story height with exceptions found in the Northridge, Artificial and Kocaeli earthquake records. The
average Rd value for four, six, eight and ten storied frames were 2.58, 2.49, 1.65 and 1.53, respectively

4.50
4 Story 6 Story
4.00
Force Reduction Factor, Rd

8 Story 10 Story
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
EQ1 EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 EQ5 EQ6 EQ7 EQ8 EQ9 EQ10
Figure 10: Force Reduction Factors (Rd) for Different Earthquake Records
7. Performance Evaluation
To evaluate the efficacy of the Rd and Ro factor calculated above, the above-mentioned four frames were
again designed using the factors calculated in this study. The Vancouver soil class “C” response
spectrum was used for the design. After the design was complete, the frames were analyzed using
nonlinear time history analysis procedure. Previous ten earthquake records were selected for this
analysis. After performing the time history analysis, roof drift data were collected from the middle point of

Page 8 of 10
the roof. Roof drift ratio is an important parameter in seismic design. It is necessary to control high roof
drift ratio in order to avoid structural hammering, non-structural damages, and merchandise falling from
the racks. Building code provided roof drift ratios ensure that none of these incidents will take place. The
maximum roof drift values are presented in Figure 10. It can be seen from the figure that for different
earthquake records the roof drift values vary quite significantly ranging from 142mm to 401mm for the
four frames. The average roof drift value was found to be 243mm which is approximately 3.7% of the
story height. This average roof drift ratio is significantly high compared to traditional residential or factory
buildings but according to RMI (2012) this is normal for rack type storage structures due to their high
beam-to-column connector flexibility. Furthermore, during shake table testing of racks Filiatrault et al.
(2006b) observed that the transient interstory drift values experienced by the racks were very high (3.8%-
9.1%) compared to general steel structures. The residual interstory drift values were also very high (0.5%-
2.6%); however, the racks did not lose their vertical load carrying capacity at these high drift values.
Similar result was also observed for six, eight and ten storied RCB frames. The empty places in this figure
(e.g. EQ8 Kocaeli) are due to the instability of the RCB frames that occurred during the time history
analysis. It can be observed that with an increase in frame height, the roof drift ratios from nonlinear time
history analysis become lower and closer to 2.5%.

700
FBD 4 Story
Roof Displacement (mm)

600 FBD 6 Story

FBD 8 Story
500 FBD 10 Story
400
300
200
100
0

Figure 10: Roof drift of the RCB frame from NLTHA

8. Conclusion
Several RCB frames were modeled with different frame heights. Pushover and incremental dynamic time
history analyses were carried out on these frames using nonlinear beam-to-column and column-to-
baseplate connector moment-rotation hysteresis. The overstrength and force reduction factors were
calculated from pushover and incremental dynamic analyses, respectively. It was observed that both
overstrength and ductility related force reduction factors decrease with the increase of frame height. The
average Rd value obtained from the dynamic analysis is 2.06 and Ro value from nonlinear static analysis
is 1.06. Although rack connections show a larger deformation capacity than traditional SMRF systems,
their ductility is lower because of their very high yield deformation. Furthermore, energy dissipated by the
beam-to-column joint is much less compared to the traditional connection because of the pinched
hysteresis loop and high stiffness degradation. For these reasons, the calculated R d factors from IDA
analyses were lower than traditional SMRF systems. It was also observed that the ductility capacity of the
structure reduces with the increase of frame height. The average ductility value obtained for these frames
was 2.3.
9. Acknowledgements
The combined financial contributions of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
(NSERC) of Canada, S-Frame software Inc. and the Steel Structures Education Foundation (SSEF)
through the J.G. Jackson Fellowship were critical for this research. We gratefully acknowledge their
financial contributions.

Page 9 of 10
 10. References
Abrahamson, N.A. “Non-stationary spectral matching,” Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 63, No. 1,
1992, pp. 30.
Annan, C., Youssef, M., & El Naggar, M. “Seismic Overstrength in Braced Frames of Modular Steel
Buildings.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2009, pp.1–21.
Asgarian, B., and Shokrgozar, H. R. “BRBF response modification factor.” Journal of Constructional Steel
Research., Vol. 65, No. 2, 2009, pp. 290-298.
Beattie, G.J., “A Design Guide for High Level Storage Racking with Public Access.” NZSEE Conference,
Paper no. 40, 2006, 8p.
NBCC, “National Building Code of Canada.” National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, 2010.
CSA. “Standard for the design and construction of steel storage racks.” CSA A344.2, Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada, 2010.
CEN. “Eurocode 8 earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1-1 — General rules and rules for
buildings.” European Commitee for Standardization, CEN, ENV 1998-2, 1998.
Dowell, R. K., Seible, F., and Wilson, E. L. “Pivot Hysteresis Model for Reinforced Concrete Members.”
Aci Structural Journal, (95), 1999, pp. 607-617.
FEMA-450, “The 2003 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures—Part
1: Provisions.” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., 2004.
FEMA-460. “Seismic Considerations for Steel Storage Racks Located in Areas Accessible to the Public.”
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2005.
Filiatrault, A., Bachman, R. E., and Mahoney, M. G. “Performance-Based Seismic Design of Pallet-Type
Steel Storage Racks.” Earthquake Spectra., Vol. 22, No. 1, 2006a, pp. 47-64.
Filiatrault, A., Higgins, P. S., and Wanitkorkul, A. “Experimental Stiffness and Seismic Response of Pallet-
Type Steel Storage Rack Connectors.” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction.,
Vol. 11, No. 3, 2006b, pp.161.
Hancock, J., Watson-Lamprey, J., Abrahamson, N.A., Bommer, J.J., Markatis, A., McCoy, E., Mendis, R.
"An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using
wavelets." Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 10, 2006, pp. 67–89.
Haque, A.B.M.R. and Alam, M.S. “Direct displacement based design of rack clad buildings.” Earthquake
Spectra. Vol. 29, No. 4, 2013, pp. 1311-1334.
Kim, J. and Choi, H. “Response modification factors of chevron braced frames”, Engineering structures
27, 2005, pp. 285-300
Mitchell. D, Tremblay. R, Karacabeyli, E, Paultre, P. Saatcioglu M, and Anderson, D.L. “Seismic force
modification factors for the proposed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada.”
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 30, 2003, pp.308–327.
Mwafy, A.M., and Elnashai, A.S. “Calibration of Force Reduction Factors of RC Buildings.” Journal of
Earthquake Engineering., Vol. 6, No. 2, 2001, pp.239-273
Rack Manufacturers Institute RMI. “Specification for The Design, Testing, and Utilization of Industrial Steel
Storage Racks—2012 Edition.” Charlotte, NC, 2012.
Riddell, R., Hidalgo, P. and Cruz, E. “Response Modification Factors for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Short Period Structures.” Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 5, No.3, 1989, pp.571-590.
Saar Lagertechnik GmbH. (2010). “XL Pallet Racking.” <www.saar-lagertechnik.com/download/XL-Pallet-
Racking.pdf> (October 10, 2010).
SeismoMatch. “A program for adjusting earthquake records, through wavelet addition, to match a specific
target response spectrum.” Seismosoft, Pavia, Italy, 2013.

Page 10 of 10

View publication stats